It is certainly true that just because someone takes money that they are not automatically wrong. However, when you have a case, like the show mentioned here, that has numerous factual errors (see the earlier posting), and does not present both sides it is natural to ponder the reasons for this - It could be just that the hosts and guests are misinformed. But when one finds out that the hosts, the guests, and the show itself are funded by the industry they are defending, and it is not mentioned during the show, I don't think you can fault people for suspecting a link between the funding and the bias. As someone who has not made up their mind about the link between suicide and SSRIs, I would never say that there is no evidence that there is a link - it is way more complicated and lets face it: the hosts and the guests know this.